Monday, January 22, 2007
PATRIOTS & SCOUNDRELS
I have never hid the fact that there are some Scots that I can't stand, other countries have these people too, mainly those who choose to display a narrow, romanticised view of their country which doesn't really exist, except of course in the world of marketing where these risible images are used to rip people off. I'd rather tell the truth, warts and all, and take it from there. Tell Jock that he's from a long tradition of brave fighting soldiers and he will charge at the guns, tell Paddy he is from a tradition of the hardest workers on the planet and he'll make you plenty of profit with his hard graft. The bosses have done this throughout history and, some people fall into line with it mainly because they can't handle the truth, which is that their beloved country and it's people have far more in common with people around the world than they would care to admit, such is their desire to feel special, sad but true. Some people don't like me saying these things as well as my claim that my position is far more honest and benefits Scotland far more than theirs. I was told about a blog called 'clairwils' which is a good example of this, read it, and weep for your country, you could not make this poisonous drivel up, reactionary nationalism in it's most puerile form, written it would seem, late on in the pub after a beating by England, if I thought these people were in any way typical of Scots I really would pack it in.
Posted by Cllr Terry Kelly at Monday, January 22, 2007
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Im a regular rwader of Clairwil's blog. Can't see where you get poisonous nationalist drivel from. Would you care to point out which parts of the blog support this view.
As an out lesbian, I would also be interested in your comments on your support for Castro's homophobic regime.
Clairwil was right to call you this. The least you could do is clarify your position. There is more to fighting homophobia than telling people you are against it.
heidi - I'm sorry you don't share my opinion of clairwils and the nationalist thing but that's the way it comes across, maybe we should both read it again. I'm opposed to homophobia wherever it is including Cuba and I've said so publicly before. The motion before the Scottish Parliament which condemns the SNP's links with the Mormon B G U states that Brigham Young University has driven young gay students to suicide, the MSP's who signed that haven't had any hassle at all ! what is going on with you people ? I really have stirred up a hornet's nest. I'm not impressed with 90% of bloggers who choose to be anonymous, I've had bloggers write to me in the most abusive terms, I could never say these things to someone unless I was prepared to face them. You can fight against bigotry your way and I'll do it my way and no doubt clairwil will carry on as well but you are a regular reader you say of that blog - I'm baffled by that, it seems to be written by a juvenile who is trying to get attention by shocking the adults.
Sorry to ramble on. But before you say anything else about Clairwil will you read this then I will leave you alone- honestly
heidi - I tried the link ( no Good ) I tried pickledpolitics and couldn't find anything then back to clairwils and found nothing new - can you be more specific.
I too am a regular reader of Clairwils, and a proud Scot to boot. Yet whilst I do not dispute her nationalist leanings I feel your assessment of her as reactionary and puerile is unfair. Your comments border on painting her as xenophobic.
I agree with you on the subject of romanticising your own country and have always maintained that whilst I do love Scotland and consider myself patriotic part of being a TRUE patriot is the ability to see the faults of your country and want to do something to rectify those faults.
In my heart I love the idea of an independent Scotland but I also realise that as a global citizen it probably wouldn't make much difference to me anyway. At the end of the day, wherever I am and wherever I live (currently in South East Asia) I identify myself as a Scotsman and the romance of that is, inevitably, embedded (often more in the minds of folk I meet than in my own!). Yet the tartan heart on my sleeve does not stop me from embracing other cultures and enjoying new non-Scots experiences!! I celebrated Burns Night last night and enjoyed sharing that part of my cultural identity with my local friends... and I look forward to joining them to celebrate the Lunar New Year in a couple of weeks!
Clairwil can be coarse and near the knuckle but 99% of the time I find her writings incisive, articulate and well thought out - even the few I disagree with. Passionate about what she feels? Yes. Reactionary? I don't think so!
ps - for the record I have never and will never support the Tories and I firmly believe that the SNP are little more than Tories with a Nationalist agenda who would balls the country up if they got their grubby mitts on it. Having said that, and having played my part in electing President Blair the first time around, I cannot claim any allegiance to 'New' Labour. My own socialist ideals simply won't allow it.
binty - I have a degree of sympathy with you, I've been a Labour Party member for approx 35 yrs. and I've harboured thoughts like yours but I come to the same conclusion each time, that is, the Labour Party 'warts n all' is the only vehicle which has any remote chance of bringing about progressive change in our society, if there is a genuine better alternative I haven't seen it - I commend your socialist ideals, mine will not allow me to quit, who do you think cheers the loudest when good socialists quit Labour and wander off into the political wilderness, the SSP / Solidarity are on about 2% of the vote and have lost every one of their past 50 or so deposits - with respect I think you should reconsider, there are many good socialists in the party I consider myself one of them.
binty - clairwil's piece about me was, indeed puerile and amounted to personal abuse, I'm relatively new to this and I find it difficult to imagine how someone can anonymously write things about me which they would not dare repeat in my presence, what's that all about ? I call it cowardice. I have long been uneasy about this 'proud Scot' stuff I'm niether proud nor ashamed of being what is after all an accident of birth, on the other hand I'm proud to call myself an internationalist. Like Einstein I regard nationalism as the measles of the planet, or Brecht 'pity the poor country that needs heroes' Burns ? hope you enjoyed your evening but he's not for me, believe me i've tried but not much of it impresses me, I like his line though about "an honest man being the noblest work of god" but then again he stole that from Alexander Pope a far greater man. I was called culturally deficient by a Nat, Cllr. B Lawson. in the council chamber because I didn't share his view of Burns, ( we the SNP will tell you what is good poetry and you will like it ) clairwil may well be passionate but her rant against me was reactionary in the extreme, I will though read her site again when she stops foaming at the mouth.
Well I'll stop foaming at the mouth when I'm no longer spending my working day trying to clear up the mess made by the Labour government.
When I don't have to sort out the mess of unpaid, wrongly paid and erratically paid tax credits. I'll calm down. Only this week I spent a couple of hours with a woman who'd run up credit card debt to feed her family when her tax credits were suddenly and without explanation withdrawn. All because Labour decided she'd be better off working. Better off in the sense that she's now earning a pittance, self-harming, up to her eyes in debt and in serious danger of losing her home. Sadly a common experience these days.
Or maybe I'll calm down when I'm not having to explain to asylum seekers that not everyone in Scotland thinks they are criminals. When I'm not trying and failing to comfort raped and tortured women, that a Labour government, in thrall to the tabloids, has decided to 'get tough' on. Maybe, when the police acting on the orders of a Labour government stop threatening to arrest decent people for the crime of asking where their neighbours are being taken after being ripped out their homes and communities in dawn raids, I'll calm down. Who knows? I might even calm down when the Labour government let's my Iranian friend start working as a dentist in a city with an appalling dental record. Or when my Palestinian doctor friend is allowed to work instead of being treated like a criminal by the Home Office. Not one of these people want benefits. What they want is to be allowed to live in relative safety and pay this country back. As far as I am concerned becoming an asylum dispersal zone is the best thing that has happened to Glasgow in a long time.
I might even calm down when I'm no longer having to help poverty stricken cancer sufferers regain the meagre benefits that the Labour government have decided to get tough on. Or when the mentally ill are treated with a bit more than contempt by the DWP. I might even give up foaming when the Labour government gives those claiming sickness benefits a proper medical as opposed to a malingering until proven otherwise prodding.
I find all of that a bit difficult to justify. Makes the working day slightly awkward. Is it any wonder I'm tense?
Oh and I'm happy to face you and make any of of the remarks I've made to your face.
Not a problem at all. After all I've nothing to fear but a robust exchange of views.
Hi again Terry....
Hope you're in good health, as I haven't seen my comment on your latest post appear yet
just read this thread...Not much of a Burns fan myself, but always liked a couple of excerpts, as contained in his most excellent poem. They read as....
Ye ugly, creepin, blastit wonner,
Detested, shunn'd by saunt an sinner,
How daur ye set your fit upon her--
Sae fine a lady!one is
Gae somewhere else and seek your dinner
On some poor body.
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An foolish notion:
What airs in dress an gait wad lea'es us,
An ev'n devotion!
Not met Clairewil, nor would I espouse her cause, but I'm sure she's a fine lady....
Yours, as a patriotic scoundrel...
Scunnered - be my guest. The Burns stuff is relatively inoffensive but not something to get upset about, mostly mediocre in my opinion. Many people cling to him because they desperately need a Scots. hero and he's the nearest they've got - Burns is an industry not a poet - and a tatty industry at that, I think Scotland can do better.
clairwil - are you honestly saying that you use that kind of language when you are involved in an exchange of views with someone ? are you writing from some kind of secure unit somewhere ?
clairwil - your aren't St. Clair by any chance are you ? I hope that you haven't been pretending all this time to be a real hard case while you're really a caring sensitive soul, that would be dishonest, ( Oscar Wilde )- Anyway I hope you feel better after that - a good rant can be quite cahartic can't it. You seem to occupy a kind of never never land where you rage against injustice which I trust makes you feel better about yourself but does it help any of those people that you quite rightly care about ? I suspect that while you are not likely to admit it you and I feel no differently about these things ( or do you claim a monopoly on compassion )where we differ is that I have never allowed myself the luxury of posturing on the sidelines - it's time to get down and dirty if that's how you really feel join the party and the fight, put up or !
Writing from a secure unit? Not yet, though it's interesting to note that you feel that you can dismiss anyone you consider mentally ill. Can I take it that you're less than enthusiastic about the executive's campaign to challenge the stigma surrounding mental health?
I am not a saint by any means. Nor have I ever claimed to be. I work in an Asylum outreach project and in a general welfare rights project and get a bit fed up saying 'yes I know it's unfair but that's the system' day in day out.
As the changes in both asylum and benefit policy have happened under a Labour government. Why on earth would I would to join such a party? I have several colleagues who have left the Labour party in disgust over the very issues I mention above.
I don't doubt that you and many others in the Scottish Labour Party hold similar views. It might be nice if you all spoke out from time to time. I recall attending a public meeting about the Vucaj family. The only mainstream parties that declined to send a speaker and/ or words of support were Labour and Conservative.
Until fairly recently I expected better of the Labour party.
clairwil - I am one of the few cllrs. prepared to welcome a new unit for adult mental health sufferers in my area despite local posionous opposition stirred up by the SNP, speak to Stephen McLelland of Renfrewshire Association for mental Health if you want to know my record, your synthetic rage over this is pathetic. You and the other quitters you refer to can be sure of one thing, whatever is seen to go wrong will not be blamed on you will it, perhaps that's more important to you. Plenty of people in the Labour Party are arguing furiously about these issues, of course it's all our fault in your simple wee world isn't it, your stance is untenable - you really should start from the premise that there are no easy answers, but then again that would be the hard choice wouldn't it, that would be reality eh ? and we can't have that can we ? - I'm 58 yrs old and you would have to be a good age to have attended as many protests, demonstrations and picket lines as I have but I don't do this now because I'm not prepared to join in anything which is blatently hi-jacked by the anti Labour rabble which is the SSP/Solidarity/SWP/SNP they are more interested in damaging Labour than they are in helping asylum seekers or anyone else, they are opportunists who cling to any cause for their own ends - American lawyers who do this are referred to as ambulance chasers -they disgust me with the way they exploit and use vulnerable people - Mrs. Gentle, Rosie Kane and her Asylum lodgers etc need I go on ?
'I am one of the few cllrs. prepared to welcome a new unit for adult mental health sufferers in my area despite local poisonous opposition stirred up by the SNP'
What a shame your persistent use of mentally ill as an insult undermines your laudable position.
Synthetic rage? I wish you'd make your mind up. One minute I'm being dismissed for being too angry, the next accused of kidding on.
'I'm not prepared to join in anything which is blatently hi-jacked by the anti Labour rabble which is the SSP/Solidarity/SWP/SNP they are more interested in damaging Labour than they are in helping asylum seekers or anyone else'
So you think other people should join the right wing Labour party to fight on these issues, but you refuse to face down people who you think have ulterior motives which in turn allows them to portray you as not caring about the issue. Are you sure that is the best way to proceed? Incidentally do you ever wonder why so many people are so angry and let down by the Labour Party?
clairwil - I've just read your site - to Mrs. Gentle and Rosie Kane's asylum lodgers we can now add clairwils's mental health sufferers - your willingness to twist my words to portray me as unsympathetic to people with mental health problems marks you out as a charlatan and a pathetic one at that - you are clearly not used to being taken on are you ?
In what way do you feel I am expoliting the mentally ill. Remember it was you who brought up my health in all this, not me. I merely noted that you had made similar remarks to other bloggers and from that suspected that you have a slightly dubious view of mental health issues.
You keep making statements then failing to explain them, which I concede makes discussion rather wearing. I have no objection to being 'taken on' as you put it. The comments on my blog are open to all including you.
clairwil - you have deliberately misinterpreted what I said about mental health and I have shown you up, you should stop squirming and start telling the truth. wrapping yourself around with those who suffer from mental health to make you look better is no different from the rest of the 'ambulance chasers' Your reaction to this indicates to me that you are not used to opposition and you don't like or cope with the heat very well.
clairwil - you are beginning to sound like the noise from an empty drum being beaten. You're accusations about me and the mental health issue and you're synthetic rage about it is pathetic. Yes, everyone who cares about these issues and the struggle for a better society has, in my opinion a moral duty to do something about it, again, in my opinion, the only way of doing that is the Labour Party - jibes about the 'right wing Labour Party' are childish, am I right wing?Tony Benn?Ken Livingstone?Dennis Skinner?Michael Foot? the people in the party who are not well known who are as good as any socialists anywhere? I sometimes think that our biggest critics who claim to be on the left are aware of what the struggle is like and they don't have the stomach for it so the party is not for them, does this shoe fit anyone you know ? I'm certainly not afraid to face down anyone and have done many times but the mob we are referring to here are simply not worth the effort - they do more harm than good to the causes they claim to care about. You stay on the sidelines wringing you're hands and girning if you wish I'll keep fighting.
What exactly is it that you are accusing me of lying about?
If you are accusing of of lying about have suffered mental illness, then say so?
My friends, family, GP and CPN will all be happy to put you straight on that one.
You accused me of writing from a secure unit and have previously implied that other people who disagree with you are mentally ill. I think it reasonable to question that.
Do you think that everyone who opposes you is mentally ill?
Do you think that those that have suffered from mental illness have no right to an opinion?
If not why query the mental state of those you disagree with?
If I were at all concerned about being challenged I simply wouldn't respond to you. Better bloggers than I have given up. For an elected official you are forced to resort to personal attack very quickly- something which you criticise me for. Is that because you have no clear achievements or policy to point to?
I note I have had a comment go missing. So I shall save this just in case. As I'm sure you understand attempting a discussion with someone who uses one's comments selectively is a bit tricky or is that the point?
clairwil - I'll take your points in order -
1/ you have chosen to accuse me of implying that those who disagree with me are mentally ill that is dishonest and cheap, whatever else you are it's quite clear that you are intelligent enough to know that that, is underhand and silly.
2/ I had no idea whatever that you have suffered as you say and you have my sympathy, this personal issue has only just surfaced, introduced by you, it's none of my business.
4/ " you are so angry and your language is such that you sound as if you are writing from a secure unit" I also called someone an 'eejit' ( idiot ) and probably someone else a 'half wit' it's not as you say reasonable to question that in the disingenuos way you have, unless you're position in the argument is absolutely desperate.
5/ I'll assume you are serious here and answer NO.
6/ see 5/ above.
7/ as I said ' absolute desperation'
8/ how would you respond to an article such as the one you wrote about me ? I'm saying here, who started this ? I assume you mean Labour's achievements and policies rather than mine, that would be like hitting my head off a brick wall.
9/ I've no idea about this I havent deleted anything of yours despite your abusive language, are you just joining in with others who have accused me of this ? You are clearly getting upset by all of this, that was never my intention and I regret drifting in to this situation, think it has gone far enough. I still hope that the rage that you feel will some day be channelled through the Labour Party where you would have a much better chance of changing things for the better.
I do hate to interrupt this, but how can you accuse Clairwil of 'synthetic rage' on behalf of the mentally ill, when most of your blog is basically a failing attempt to falsely expose the SNP as some giant homophobic conspiracy?
Why do you accuse other political parties of hijacking issues when most if not all of your posts you make about LGBT equality amount to little more than trojan horses for a vitriolic attack on the SNP?
Can you at least see how your approach might potentially be viewed as hypocritical?
Hi again Terry
glad to see your support for the mentally ill
a delusion is defined as:
A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith).
(Wikipedia, quoting 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders')
It is arguable that the majority of people in the country would consider your notion that their expending time and effort to be 'channelled through the Labour Party ....where [they]..would have a much better chance of changing things for the better', would be unlikely to do anything of the sort, and quite delusional
We already have enough people who are as strange as think so, about 22% if my memory serves me well, without our wishing to join them
.....lying down in a dark room could be very restful
don't do it for too long though, as I'd miss your writings...
PS - to your possible credit...as you've posted everything I've sent you, you might be the only socialist I ever met who has a sense of humour....but I'm not counting on it just yet.....
Please be assured I am not at all upset by anything you've said. Amused on one level and fairly depressed on another. However as I said before if I were in any way distressed I would simply stop responding.
I merely brought the mental health thing up because you've used it as an insult several times and your daughter has gone to the trouble of consulting a psychologist regarding other bloggers remarks. I was just a bit puzzled as to why
mental health seemed to be such a recurring theme. If you had, for example made repeated references to the race of other commentators on your site (please be assured that I am not implying that you would), I would wonder if you had some issue or problem with race.
Using words like idiot, stupid or halfwit are to me, acceptable. Speculating on peoples medical history and treatment less so.
You are probably right that I would be fairly unimpressed by you rhyming off the Labour Party's recent achievements. After all in my day to day work each government policy change brings worse problems, however well intentioned they may be.
However I'd hate to influence the content of your blog unduly and I am sure that many of your other readers would like to hear a bit of good news for a change.
scunnered - your contention that people would find my comments delusional is of course delusional - OK I couldn't resist the open goal. is it not about time you told us what you ! stand for ?
clairwil - if using words like half wit etc are OK by you why do you keep going on about it, you are deliberately muddying the waters here, you are using this issue like a crutch. neither me nor my daughter has ever speculated about anyone's medical history/treatment, she merely asked her friend who knows about these things what she thought of the language being used and she said it looked as if it was written by someone who was scared of something, hardly the crime you are trying to make it out to be now is it? why don't you drop the obvious diversions or, could you also be scared ?
will - I can smell the fear off you - your party has had several anti gay scandals over the past year or so and the lack of any official response from the leadership, compounded yet again by their crawling to the religious zealots from various quarters, marks them and you out as cowards and opportunists. The real question is, why is it that no one in the SNP is prepared to speak out about it ? you should be considering that lack of debate.democracy instead of running away from it.
I notice, Councillor, that you opt not to answer my questions. Let me first show you how this whole blogging mallarkey is done by answering your points, then I'll restate mine in the hope, however faint, that you get around to answering them.
I question your 'anti-gay scandal' allegation (and I've just realised how long this comment is going to become, I'm sorry about this!). We all know about Brian Adam's links with BYU. Those are Brian Adam's links, not the SNP's, just as your blog represents your views, not the Labour Party's (you say that on your homepage). Further, in Adam's case, he has arranged internships for BYU students with Tory and LibDem MSPs as well as with SNP Members. Now, I'm as disgusted by BYU's approach as you are, if not more so, but I don't see why that should lead to their students getting an opportunity open to students at other U.S. universities.
As for the other two 'scandals' (your word, not mine), well, I do not have key members of the SNP Leadership in my phone book (they don't have me in theirs either) so I can speak only for myself. In Roseanna Cunningham's case, I was disappointed with her approach, and some of her language, but the central point seemed to be that gay adoption wasn't something that could go through on the nod, that there had to be a debate. I agree with that point. The debate was had, more importantly, it was seen and most importantly, it was won (remember that most of the SNP MSPs voted against her amendments, also remember that some Labour MSPs supported her as well). If it had not, the genuinely homophobic parties (the ones who claim to be 'Christian') would have had a field day: they would have claimed that this measure was forced on the people and rather than having the debate in the Chamber, they would have forced the debate to happen during the Election campaign. My view is that every vote those parties get is a hammerblow to the equality movement and that had Roseanna Cunningham's actions have deprived them of a stick with which to beat the mainstream parties.
On gay adoption: I've recently blogged on this myself to the effect that allowing Catholic agencies to have their own policy isn't a bad idea: couples in the gay community (a community of which I am a member) have the legal right to adopt; Catholic agencies would have the right not to offer a service to us, but that isn't a problem as we can get the service elsewhere. If anything, it's more damaging to the Catholic adoption agencies as they then have a limited pool of parents for the children on their books, but if they want to cut their noses off to spite their faces then that's their affair. If you want to replace an old discrimination (against gay couples, who can now adopt) with a new discrimination (against the Catholic Church, which would be prevented from putting one of its beliefs - however outdated - into practice), then that's your affair too, but you might want to remove that tagline about you being against all forms of discrimination, as you are now advocating one. As regards the alleged lack of debate within the Party, I don't see how something as emotive as this could have passed without debate. Just because you and I aren't privy to the details doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
I re-iterate my first set of comments, which you at least displayed but then completely ignored in your 'response'. You have accused Clairwil of synthetic rage on behalf of the mentally ill, then displyed synthetic rage yourself on behalf of the LGBT Community (incidentally, I find your frankly patronising 'I'm standing up for gays' attitude more offensive than homophobia: the LGBT Community can stand up for itself). You accuse opposition parties of 'hijacking' issues for partisan purposes, but your posts on gay rights amount to little more than 'Nat-bashing'. You claim to support the equality movement, but you tie this 'support' to your own partisan agenda. Now, I ask you a clear question, and I hope for an answer: how do you reconcile the differences between what you claim and how you act?
Scared? Why should I be? What on earth of?
' neither me nor my daughter has ever speculated about anyone's medical history/treatment, she merely asked her friend who knows about these things what she thought of the language being used and she said it looked as if it was written by someone who was scared of something,'
Indeed, which was then placed on her blog as...
'The likes of Mr Farrer and Martin are well known for their personal attacks which have nothing to do with beliefs or issues, although a psychologist friend who read some of the articles did suggest that they show a distinct air of threat, they are threatened that is by Cllr T Kelly's views.'
Prior to which you suggest that Martin Kelly was unwell and should seek help.
'I have advice for Martin, ' You are not a well man sir - seek help'
From that and other remarks I took this to mean that you felt that he and other commentators on your blog were mentally ill and or either receiving or should be receiving medical treatment. That your daughter felt compelled to consult a professional in the mental health field and publish their findings, without the consent or prior approval of the individual concerned looked to me like speculating on that persons mental health.
From what I can gather you are saying that this is not the case and that you were in fact using the implication of mental health problems as a term of abuse and insult which does not reflect your real views on the subject of mental health.
I am happy to accept that I have misunderstood the situation and apologise for that. I would again state that you are more than welcome to clarify your position or take issue with any remarks I've made under the relevant posts on my blog.
clairwil - how long are you going to continue clutching at straws, you are still trying to peddle this nonsense about me -I said that to Martin - yes, so you suggest that I'm calling the mental health of anyone who disagrees with me into question, that is because you don't have anything and you are getting more and more desperate, you then, quite pathetically describe my daughters casual conversation with her friend as her being ' compelled to consult a professional in the mental health field without cosent etc etc is this really the best you can do ?
you ought to read what some of these bloggers said about me, is it not time for you to get real.
will - are you seriously telling me that your questions were not rhetorical ? perhaps you could consider from your lofty pedestal that because you or me for that matter, say something does not make it so, you display an unusual arrogance. so Mr Adam brings these students to work with SNP MSP's and it's nothing to do with the party ? how nice and convenient for you, what kind of duplicity is that? I don't expect you to deal with it I expect your opportunist party to say something, are you the only guy on the planet that didn't know Salmond was about to sell out for the catholic vote ? you've managed to turn SNP MSP Cunningham into a hero with you're twisted logic. So opposing the catholic church's homophobia makes me guilty of discrimination, having read that piece of trash I'm glad you find me offensive. Let me answer your question about how I reconcile the differences ( your word ) between what I claim and how I act, your claim about 'differences' is only your subjective opinion and I don't agree with it, how's that ? why don't you just send me a copy of what you want my answers to be and I'll print them for you. Pathetic.
I ended my last comment as follows
'I am happy to accept that I have misunderstood the situation and apologise for that. I would again state that you are more than welcome to clarify your position or take issue with any remarks I've made under the relevant posts on my blog.'
I'm afraid I'm not a professional politician which maybe why this is starting to go over my head. I am becoming increasingly confused by your repeated acquisition that I am 'desperate' and 'don't have anything'. In relation to what? If you have a specific allegation or point to make then please do so and I shall do my best to answer it.
C'mon man if you have something to say spit it out!
clairwil - I have no issue with you other than your decision to launch a vitriolic and foul mouthed attack on me. following my decision to retaliate you quickly descended into a dishonest position shifting the argument on to my alleged bad attitude to people with mental health problems, did that make me mad ? damn right it did. that piece of chicanery shows that you don't really have much of an argument against me, I'm happy to debate with you but please stick to the truth.
I AM seriously telling you that my questions were not rhetorical. I asked the question, so I would know. I asked the questions to get an answer. Can I have one? And if not, why are you afraid to answer?
You might also want to re-read my previous comment: Brian Adam helps BYU students to get placements with Tory and LibDem MSPs. Why are they not tarred with your brush? Why is the whole Scottish Parliament not accused of homophobia for allowing these people in? No, your cries of foul are nothing but crocodile tears and I resent you hijacking my community for your own personal partisan battles.
As I said before, I cannot predict or anticipate every move that the SNP Leadership makes, just as you cannot predict every move the Labour Leadership makes... actually, no, scratch that, you can predict Labour's moves, they're advocated in The Sun a few days earlier.
Nor is Roseanna Cunningham a hero: I already said that I was disappointed with the way she handled herself when she was taking a stance on such an emotive issue. She could have used far more sensitivity and she could have expressed her views in a more reasonable way. Seeing as you claim to oppose the principle of what she said, will you condemn Alasdair Morrison for voting with her? (That's not a rhetorical question either.) No, Roseanna did not intend for her amendments to deprive the so called 'Christian' homophobic parties of a weapon, but that's what I believe they have done and without her actions, you and I would have no choice but to work together against the bigotry of the SCP and SCPA to name but two. We can now both say that the debate was had, and the right side won.
And, yes, actually, you are discriminating against the Catholic Church. I'm not their biggest fan, I don't agree with them but I don't need to get them to support me. If Mario Conti thinks I'm a miserable sinner then that's fine: I won't be crying into my pillow tonight. Let them practice my faith: just as I don't want Catholicism imposed on me (it isn't), I don't think it's fair for my morality to be imposed on them. That way, I get to live my life, they get to live theirs and the only people who are unhappy are the extremists on both sides, who we all need to work against. If you want to suppress another group's values, then fine, but don't do it in my name or in the name of the gay community of which I am a member.
As for the differences you deny: you accuse others of a synthetic rage which you show yourself. You accuse others of hijacking legitimate campaigns just as you hijack the gay equality movement. You accuse everyone who opposes you of cowardice and then duck every question they ask. Actually, you're right: those aren't diferences. They are nothing less than examples of hypocrisy.
PS You'll be glad to know I'm changing my link policy and as of tonight, you will now get one from my blog. Every double standard you display from now until polling day will be called. Every time you completely ignore the facts for your own rant will be called.
'vitriolic and foul mouthed'
Well certainly vitriolic yes but foul mouthed?
I have re-read my post and comments and can't see much in the way of swears. Are you sure you've read the right post? I freely admit that I have been know to turn the blogosphere blue on more than one occasion. You indicated fairly early on that you were offended by my tone and I have sought to moderate it to take account of this. I certainly don't see that I've said anything worse than say 'village idiots'. If there are any specific phrases that I have used that you feel are outwith the bounds of acceptable banter, please highlight them to me and I will give your comments due consideration.
As for this assertion that I don't have anything on you, so to speak. You might be right but we'll never know as you did not respond to the points I raised in my original post re gay rights in Cuba, housing stock transfer, your apparent blanket dislike of all Scottish tradition, my sincerely held belief that Labour in Scotland have been at best ineffective.
Your response was to call me a puerile nationalist without any explanation, which hardly raises the level of debate much.
clairwil - I did go back and read the your blog and others, as well as a sample of some of the stuff that you link to, you, and they have a mouths like toilets. Try starting with how you used my name in a pathetic word play, like a filthy wee kid behind a bike shed. If you try being more diligent you will find plenty from me on Cuba and stock transfer I condemn civil rights abuses everywhere and wrote plenty about the proposed transfer so, what is it you need to know, you seem to have made you're mind up judging by your article, Labour in Scotland ? you know nothing. If you live long enough yopu will see almost everything and, I've just seen you complaining that I am guilty of failing to raise the level of debate, whit ? and on that re-read I noticed your use of the following "giggle like a loon" & this gem Cllr. Kelly gave up developing mentally" so with a champion like you people with mental health problems will be fine, remember what I said about synthetic rage ? - have you not had enough punishment yet ? I'm beginning to feel like a right liberty taker.
will - congrats. once again on your brevity - here's a toughie for you, is the question "why are you afraid to answer" rhetorical or, non rhetorical? careful now. other parties involved with BYU have been tarred by my brush but I don't remember your brush being applied to the MSP's of several parties who moved a motion at Holyrood similar to what I've said on this, hypocrisy? dishonesty? predicting Labour's moves by reading the SNP supporting sun? well, as soon as Mario Conti made his announcement I said that the SNP would buy catholic votes, howzat? politics is hard isn't it will. Morrison should be expelled I've already said that. you still sound like a collaborator with you're church stance, anything for a vote eh. catholics don't impose on you and vice versa, how civilised, get off your knees man it's embarrassing. clairwil did express synthetic rage about my alleged attitude to mental health she did it knowingly and underhandedly and you're no better for agreeing with her - in my opinion that is. Salmond and the SNP are indeed ambulance chasers, I M O - and actually, again, I M O, I don't duck any questions, as I've said before, because you say it doesn't mean it's so, again I M O. So you want to follow me all the way to the election? bring it on, we can 'rant' at each other, or maybe I can rant and you can debate in a modified civilised way.
Sorry for being a bit childish with your name. It was an attempt at humour. I had no idea you were so sensitive.
I'm unclear how you arrive at the conclusion that I am a champion for the mentally ill. I do have an interest in the issues surrounding mental health care because of my own and other friends experiences. That's all. Suggesting someone 'gave up developing mentally' is not in my view an accusation of mental illness, suggesting as it does a willful stupidity than anything health related. I just find your idea that everyone who's not a member of the Labour party is insincere, exploitation or evil a little adolescent. More so when it does not appear to be backed up by any form of argument.
I'm afraid I've had another look at your writing on Cuba and all I could find was your very complimentary assessment of Castro. I have been unable to find any of your posts on gay rights in Cuba or Cuban Human Rights abuses. I have I am afraid encountered similar problems with your post on housing stock transfer. All I could find was a post berating the SSP and stating that they do not care about tenants. I do not have any objection to housing associations as such, my concern with housing stock transfer comes from experience in Glasgow where many owner occupiers are facing homelessness and financial ruin because the GHA will not allow them sufficient time to pay up their repairs bills. I think that is an entirely reasonable concern. As a home owner yourself I'm sure you'll appreciate how frightening and traumatic the prospect of losing one's home is. I would however be interested to read the other posts you mention and see if these answer my questions. I'd be obliged if you could supply the relevant links.
I don't understand your comment about me 'living long enough'. Can you explain exactly what you mean?
I wasn't aware that your intention was to 'punish' me for disagreeing with you. A rather peculiar attitude if you don't mind me saying so and perhaps one that says more about you than anything else.
I have not complained that you have failed to raise the level of debate. This is your blog and you are free to use it as you please. I just note that you seem very quick to criticise everyone else for personal attacks and so on but seem happy to indulge in similar yourself. A case of do as I say not as I do perhaps? I also had the somewhat naive view that an elected politician would be skilled in debate and able to answer criticism in a reasonable way. I imagined it was a prerequisite for such a job. However one lives and learns.
Firstly on my use of rhetorical questions. That question was not rhetorical, though if you answer my previous non-rhetorical questions (Rather than simply asking if they are rhetorical), then the question becomes redundant. But not rhetorical. (And I freely admit that I could have done with a thesaurus on this paragraph!)
And let me just end this nonsense about the SNP being homophobic: if it were homophobic, I would not be in it. Unlike you, I am not prepared to stick with a Party 'warts and all': if I have little or nothing in common with a group, it maks no sense for me to be in it and defend it. That is why I left Labour in 2004. The alleged BYU link to the party is a red herring: Brian Adam is not the SNP in its entirety just as you are not the whole of the Labour Party. I could accuse Labour of having links to Opus Dei because of Ruth Kelly if I wanted to, but it would make very little sense to do so: Labour is bigger than Ruth Kelly. Which I'm sure we both agree is a good thing.
And as for the allegiance of the Sun, I shall simply ask how long you've been living under a rock (OK, THAT'S rhetorical). The Sun bought into Blairism, and the Labour Government's policies often bear a striking similarity to demands issued in the Murdoch editorials a few days earlier.
I have better things to do than collaborate with the Catholic Church. And 'arrogant' people (your accusation du jour yesterday) tend not to be on their knees (your accusation today). Am I Mr. Bighead, or Mr. Creepy-grovelly? Choose one, you can't have both. Seriously, choose one, I'm asking you a question, I'm not being rhetorical.
And here's a final question for you 'not to duck': in what way is Clairwil's so-called 'synthetic rage' on behalf of the mentally ill different from your so-called defence of the gay community?
clairwil - being one of eight brothers from a peripheral Paisley housing estate is what makes me so sensitive. Mental illness? you tried to use this against me and you proved to be a hypocrite.Your conclusion that I find everyone who's not a member of the Labour Party "insincere, exploitative ( I think you meant ) or evil" is actually a good example adolescent nonsense.
Cuba? a beacon of hope! I don't know any country which can cast the first stone about human rights Cuba is not perfect and is guilty of abuses but is one of the best societies there is, Cubans lives are vastly improved under Castro I've written on this before but I'm not going to do your work for you I'm too busy. The SSP as above, charlatans, not worth discussing, you can't see them now for their pile of lost deposits. If you live long enough meant everyone, as for "punishing you" you leave me no alternative but to conclude that you are not kidding and you really are thick, 'punish as in win the points' - try harder. You seem to be saying that I fail the prerequisite of being skilled in debate, well, I thought I was doing OK with you.
will - this farce has gone on long enough, like you, from now on I will decide what is and is not rhetorical. So the SNP has no warts? that's interesting. people leave and join political groups all the time, finding the real reason is however quite tricky. Your party has failed repeatedly to clean up the anti gay rhetoric of too many of it's members. Brian Martin is doing a deal with B Y U it's an official link with the SNP B Y U is described in a Holyrood motion as being responsible for the suicide of gay suicides, no warts indeed eh? Sunday Herald,bishop devine rants that all society's ills are as a result of attacks on traditional marriage - comments ( Labour Ian Davidson MP) "the bishop should look beyond his unhealthy obsession with homosexuals" Salmond? "the bishop is right to speak out, we support marriage and stable families etc etc" The Sun? would Salmond welcome their endorsement? ( rhetorical )
It would appear that people can indeed be arrogant and crawl around on their knees, big headed and a groveller, are you not a case in point. clairwil's rage is synthetic mine is not, that's the difference, that's the ANSWER - it might not suit you but that is the ANSWER.
I just love how it's taken you several days to let people see my comment while you think of a retort. And make up stuff in order to do so.
Also, you're making up the official link thing (who IS Brian Martin, anyway?): there has never been a formal link established between the SNP and BYU. I have not yet seen a quote from Alex Salmond about Joseph Devine's rant. If you can provide me with a source, I'll look at it and comment. I do know that the comments I have made on the matter were supported by a member of the SNP's NEC. An anti-gay Party wouldn't vote to repeal Section 28 (SNP MSPs did). An anti-gay Party wouldn't vote for Civil Partnerships (SNP MPs did).
I'll deal with warts that are actually there, thank you very much.
And seeing as the difference between Clairwil's complaints and yours is the apparent 'synthetic' nature of Clairwil's comments, let me ask you this (again, not rhetorical): what makes Clairwil's rage 'synthetic' and what makes yours 'genuine'?
Frankly, if you cared so much about the LGBT community, you would see us as more than a political football.
will - poor will, I almost feel like letting you off, but, you won't learn will you. I'm afraid you have delusions of grandure, maybe it's that arrogance again. I've replied to approx. 25 comments today in date and time order, this, is the latest. So I'm afraid to answer you? and them? explain how I've answered you before almost before your ink is dry if I need as you say, days to prepare. ( definately not rhetorical ) Martin SNP MSP 'Mormon' ? the link, are you saying that your party did not know about B Y U ( again, not rhetorical )and, again, what have they done or said about it?
Salmond/Bish. Devine/ Davidson - I gave you the source The Sunday Herald, what's wrong with you? you're not usually this bad. A party which is supportive of gay rights would have sorted out Cunningham, Ewing, Martin and Salmond wouldn't they? clairwil? this is bloody silly, I M O she is guilty of hypocrisy on mental health, she tried to use the issue as if she owned it and got caught, I'm genuine and whether you accept that or not is up to you. If you cared at all about the LGBT community you would try to get the SNP to clean up it's act. And finally, can you try being briefer or are you trying to exhaust me. And finally, finally, re. your juvenile arrogant claim about my response, you wrote I think on Friday I didn't read you comments until today because the system was down yesterday check with Ren. Council if you wish, hence the large part of today replying to what is mostly dross. You might think about admitting that you have made a fool of yourself again, go on, go on.
I think you're getting your wires crossed... do you mean Brian Adam? If so, I shall repeat, ad nauseam, that Brian Adam is Brian Adam and not the SNP. There is no formal party link to the BYU. Full stop. I can't make it any clearer than that, and to say that Brian Adam's contacts with BYU constitute an official link to the party is like saying that Labour are officially linked with Opus Dei because of Ruth Kelly. Nor is it fair on students at BYU that they should be permanently cut off from opportunities available to students at other universities, simply because of their university authority's backward policy. The students are not culpable and hopefully a spell working in Scotland where the equality cause is more advanced than in other parts of the world (including parts of the US) will be beneficial to them.
I've seen Bishop Devine's comments, but the reaction I haven't seen: it doesn't seem to appear in the online version (check it if you like). In principle, though, the Bishop has a right to spout off, just as I have the right to call him a muppet.
I still don't understand how Clairwil 'tried to own' the mental health issue or how she 'got caught', and I am yet to see any evidence of you being 'genuine' on gay rights. If it's possible for you to write a piece on it in isolation, without reference to any other political party, then I'll accept your credentials, but please do not tell me that I do not care about a community of which I am a member. I don't want to see my community hijacked and dragged into a party political battle when really there is no gay 'block vote' (if there can be gay Tories, then there is no block vote). As such, it does frustrate me to see your posts falsely accusing the SNP of institutional homophobia. In terms of the SNP, for every Roseanna Cunningham we have good people like Grant Thoms in key party positions: as long as people like him are involved there is no way, no way at all, that the party could be considered homophobic. Certainly I wouldn't want to be involved in a party where I felt that I wasn't welcome, and when it matters, the SNP support the right measures, like the repeal of Section 28 and the institution of Civil Partnerships, and, indeed, the majority of our MSPs voting to allow adoption by gay couples. If that weren't the case, I would have nothing to do with it, but as things stand the SNP is big enough for Roseanna and myself, just as Labour can hold both Ruth Kelly and Stephen Twigg, and the LibDems can hold the activists who called Simon Hughes the 'straight choice' and, er, Simon Hughes.
I am sorry (really, I am) about the length of posts: I'm not aiming to exhaust you but I'm cover a lot of ground in detail: I think it's easier to explain myself the first time, than to produce one assertion then face ten comments all to the effect of 'Unh?!'. And if the server was down, then, fine, I was unfair there.
will - 1st para, nothing new here just going over old ground - I'm fed up with it. Yes it's Adam OK.
2nd para, I gave you the comments! would I lie about something so easy to find?
3rd para, again, nothing new - I'm just glad that it's members of your party that has B Y U / Cunningham / Ewing / Adam / Salmond etc. you stick with them if you wish.
4th. para - See above for example of brevity.
OK - two simple, clear questions:
1. What makes Clairwil's stance on behalf of the mentally ill 'synthetic'?
2. What what makes your stance in terms of the LGBT community is 'genuine'?
I have asked you to explain this already and you have not. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed it, seeing as you 'don't duck questions'.
She introduced this along with her own problems as a diversion because she was being beaten up my me. Go back and read it, she tried to suggest that I was discriminating against people with mental health problems because I had used phrases like 'half wit' and 'eejit' ( idiot )that I M O is dishonest and shallow - as I said synthetic rage.
I've tried to work out what your question about LGBT is about. I am opposed to discrimination of all kinds including homophobia. That is genuine what else can I say.
No, she raised this issue when you accused her of writing from a secure unit. I know this because you suggested that I go back and read what had been put, and I know a good idea when I see one. She also pointed out (and I double checked this) your description of David Farrer as a 'barking right wing nutter' and your suggestion that Martin Kelly should seek help, so I think she had a fair point. Those are common words and phrases, and you're far from alone in using them: I'll assume that no offence was meant, but even so, in my own opinion it was low. All I can say is that you probably haven't had to care for a mentally ill family member as if you had, you'd probably think twice about dismissing other people using such terms.
My question about LGBT is actually pretty clear: when was the last time you discussed the gay community and the equality agenda without making reference to any opposing political party or any members of an opposing political party?
will - you're pathetic she used all this as a diversion and now you're using her, all that language you quote is heard everywhere and means absolutely nothing, trying to use it like this is means you are desperate "I've never had to deal with a mentally ill relative" are you about to spring one on me? can you get any lower? you know nothing about me.
I have been arguing against homophobia for longer than I care to remember I've written about it before in my web site and blog. I found out about BYU and unlike your party I reacted to it. The SNP's cowardice in not dealing with this and the others is IMO worth commenting on.
Why am I 'pathetic' for agreeing with someone who disagrees with you? You called David Farrer a 'nutter'. Fact. You told Martin Kelly to 'seek help'. Fact. You said that Clairwil was 'writing from a secure unit'. Fact. And you accuse others of being puerile! In those tirades you both trivialise mental illness and show contempt for the mentally ill. You should take that 'I oppose discrimination' rubbish off your front page as it's a blatant lie: you're quite willing to drag the mentally ill into your dark little world and use their suffering as something to mock your opponents with. Saying 'people say that all the time' is no excuse: if you oppose discrimination you should think before you use certain words.
And if you really had opposed homophobia you'd have no trouble in showing one example where you haven't discussed my community while dragging it into a rant about the SNP. Stop ducking the question.
One more thing: if the SNP is 'not worth commenting on' about BYU etc, then why do you keep commenting on it?
will - I'm trying to take pity on you, you are making a fool of yourself. One of my colleauges referring to another colleauge a minute ago said that "B - - - - - - s aff his heid he wants locking up" I tried an experiment. I accused him of trivialising mental illness and showing contempt for the mentally ill I also accused him of not caring about discrimination as well as dragging the mentally ill into his own dark little world and using their suffering to mock others. He stared at me for a while and then said "I've changed my mind, it's not him that wants locking up it's you ya crazy B _ _ _ _ _ D" you should try the same experiment. You and clairwil are using the mentally ill because you are both desperate and both rather distasteful characters who have clearly lost this particular plot. Go back and reread about the SNP "not being worth commenting on" and see how you're making a fool of yourself - if you must keep writing please try to find something new, you are in danger of being cut off, I'm sick of reading the same stuff over and over.
I'm sick of writing the same stuff, so answer the question that I keep asking and you keep ignoring: when was the last time you spoke up on behalf of the gay community without referring to another political party in the process?
A clear answer to that question and I'll be off your back.
will - I have been a supporter of the gay community all my life, I don't need to justify myself to you. Your blog before this one was just so bloody awful and prejudiced as well as repetitive that you are in fact now 'off my back' you've said nothing new for weeks, enough is enough.
Post a Comment